DOCSLIB.ORG

Reproduced with Permission from the American Society of International

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reproduced with Permission from the American Society of International Reproduced with permission from the American Society of International Law, Rereading Root in Proceedings of the 100th Annual Meeting (American Journal of International Law) (2006), © The American Society of International Law. THE LEGACY OF ELIHU ROOT The panel was convened at 9:00 a.m., Friday, March 31, by its moderator, Charles N. Brower of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, who introduced the lecturer and commentators: Anne-Marie Slaughter of Princeton University; Anthony Carty of Aberdeen Law School; and Jonathan Zasloff of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law. Introductory Remarks by Charles N. Brower The first President of this Society wrote these words as the opening sentence in Volume I, Part I of the American Journal of International Law one hundred years ago under the title ‘‘The Need of Popular Understanding of International Law’’: ‘‘The increase of popular control over national conduct, which marks the political development of our time, makes it constantly more important that the great body of the people in each country should have a just conception of their international rights and duties.’’ How sharply relevant those words ring a century later! It therefore is not just fitting, but in fact of urgent timeliness that at this Centennial Annual Meeting we revisit ‘‘The Legacy Of Elihu Root.’’ To lead us through that legacy as lecturer we are favored by the presence and efforts of our own Anne-Marie Slaughter. Her most important accomplishment in professional life, of course, has been to have served as our Society’s President. She happens also, however, now to be serving as Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and Bert G. Kerstetter ‘ 66 University Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University. A less widely known fact, which appeals to me as a resident of The Netherlands, is that her mother is from nearby Belgium. For commentary on Anne-Marie’s presentation, we draw on two contrasting disciplinary perspectives. Anthony Carty is a Northern Irishman who first learned law in Belfast (which to me as the father of a British Army officer who was decorated for valor during service there seems a faintly curious place to have learned it!) and after further education in England has migrated to the University of Aberdeen as professor of public law. His specialty is the theory of international law, an example of which in his list of publications that particularly struck me and that may give you a flavor of his approach to the subject, is ‘‘Nietzsche And Socrates? Or the Spirit of the Devil and the Law.’’ By contrast, Jonathan M. Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, is a transplanted New Yorker and a legal historian whose four graduate degrees include a Ph.D. from Harvard for which he wrote his thesis on none other than— you guessed it!—Elihu Root. Rereading Root By Anne-Marie Slaughter Elihu Root was a Wilsonian living at the dawn of a new century, a time that he perceived as an age of globalization and democratization. ‘‘The greatest change in the conditions of national life during the past century,’’ Root wrote, ‘‘has been in the advance and spread of democratic government,’’ an advance that he argued was necessary for international law to survive.1 Root was also an idealist who believed in practical problem-solving. ‘‘Politics is 1 Elihu Root, The Effect of Democracy on International Law, 11 ASIL Proc. 2 (1917). 203 204 ASIL Proceedings, 2006 the practical exercise of the art of self-government, and somebody must attend to it if we are to have self-government.’’2 Sound familiar? The 2006 National Security Strategy announces that ‘‘the goal of [U.S.] statecraft is to help create a world of democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system.’’ Moreover, the U.S. approach ‘‘is idealistic about our national goals, and realistic about the means to achieve them.’’3 But how can this be? Elihu Root, revered founder of the American Society of International Law and champion of a law-governed international system? And George W. Bush, the president who, in his first term, resolutely set the face of his administration against interna- tional rules and institutions and indeed international constraints of any kind? There are many answers to the question, and many differences between Bush and Root. But there are in fact many similarities, which means that rooting around in the differences is an interesting, if sometimes dark, mirror on the nation we were then and the nation we have become. I propose to reread Root for three purposes: as revelation, as revisionism, and as ritual. Rereading Root as Revelation It seems meet and fit to reread Root on the occasion of the centennial of one of the great societies he founded, the other two being the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Law Institute. As members of the Society, we can steep ourselves in the verities of our past. Unexpectedly, however, rereading Root sheds a very interesting light on the direction of present American foreign policy. As just noted, he shared not only the goals but in many ways the worldview that our present secretary of state and secretary of defense do, but he had quite a different vision of how they should be pursued. The Similarities Let’s begin with the similarities. In 1908 Root gave a presidential address at the second annual meeting of the Society, entitled ‘‘The Sanction of International Law.’’ He framed his entire discussion of international law in the context of globalization. ‘‘In former times,’’ nations were isolated from one another and ‘‘regarded only the physical power of other nations.’’ ‘‘Now, however,’’ there may be seen plainly the effects of a long-continued process which is breaking down the isolation of nations, permeating every country with better knowledge and understanding of every other country, spreading throughout the world a knowledge of each government’s conduct to serve as a basis for criticism and judgment, and gradually creating a community of nations.4 As is often noted, the period of globalization just prior to the first world war was as intense, and perceived as such, as is the period of globalization that has occurred over the past several decades, accelerating after the Cold War. 2 Lincoln as a Leader of Men, in Men and Policies:Addresses by Elihu Root, 69–75 (Robert Bacon & James Brown Scott eds., 1924). 3 The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Mar. 16, 2006), available at <http:// www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/intro.html> [hereinafter National Security Strategy]. 4 Elihu Root, The Sanction of International Law, 2 ASIL Proc. 14 (1908). The Legacy of Elihu Root 205 Nine years later, Root gave another presidential address at the Society’s annual meeting, this one entitled ‘‘The Effect of Democracy on International Law.’’ His context for this address was unavoidably ‘‘the great war, which is steadily drawing into its circle the entire civilized world.’’ He acknowledges indirectly the dashing of his great hopes for the steady progress of international law governing a community of nations, asking his audience to ‘‘consider how it may be possible to reestablish the law of nations upon a durable basis,’’ and, specifically, to ‘‘inquire whether the political and social conditions’’ after the war would permit the establishment ‘‘upon some basis of principle a system of international law which can be maintained and enforced.’’ Root’s answer, in a nutshell, is that a durable system of international law can be established only within a community of democracies. He begins by analyzing the causes of the ‘‘continued and persistent progress’’ of democracy in countries all over the globe, concluding, ‘‘The existence and assured continuance of development of democracy is the great fact forecasting the future conditions under which the effort to reinstate the law of nations is to be made.’’5 Conversely, The progress of democracy . is destroying the type of government which has shown itself incapable of maintaining respect for law and justice and resisting the temptations of ambition, . [and is] substituting a new form of government which in its nature is incapable of proceeding by the same methods, and necessarily responds to different motives and pursues different objects from the old autocratic offenders.6 Compare, once again, the language and the reasoning of the 2006 National Security Strategy: It is the policy of the United States to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. In the world today, the fundamental character of regimes matters as much as the distribution of power among them. More specifically, the authors of the National Security Strategy echo Root’s seemingly essentialist logic. ‘‘Governments that honor their citizens’ dignity and desire for freedom,’’ they write, tend to uphold responsible conduct toward other nations.’’ Conversely, ‘‘[G]overn- ments that brutalize their people also threaten the peace and stability of other nations. Ergo, ‘‘promoting democracy is the most effective long-term measure for strengthening international stability’’ and ‘‘extending peace and prosperity.’’ Many spluttering members of the audience are already preparing to pounce, pointing out that Root talks of the future of international law, whereas the National Security Strategy speaks rather of international stability and peace. And true enough, search in vain through the National Security Strategy for any mention of international law. But these differences help make my case that rereading Root today illuminates a great deal about problems with the logical underpinnings of the current Strategy—or perhaps with the lack of such underpinnings.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Attitude and Policy Or Elihu Root Toward Latin America 11
    The Attitude and Policy or Elihu Root Toward Latin America 11 'fHE ATTitf'UDE A?H) POLICY OF EtimT ROOT By JIMJ!LIE I!ERFJ:LL KEELE,, Bachelor or Arts Oklahr;:na Agricultural and Uechanieal College Stillwater, Oklahoma 194? Submitted to tl:e Dep,a.rtment of Ristory Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College I'n Part1&l F'ultillm.ent of the Requirements For the Degree of BASTER OP ARTS iii OlZL.\ no:,i A 1 A6lUOTIL1URAl & MWli~lCAL COuLEGE LIBRARY MAY 6 1949 APPROVED BY: Uember of the Thesis Com::1 ittee ~ 1))9dw-il, Dean of 'tbeGraduateSchl 231092 1v Preface Tbis study bas been developed from three c tegories. The first abows the background of Elihu Root 1th the thour,, tin mind of the influence and bearing of tb1s background upon tbe attitude of Root in Latin Jmerican ffa rs. Eext, this development is devoted to the b1storic trip of oot to Latin America that helps in a very l rgo degree to t.i.ke his attitude to ard Latin Americ better un erstand ble by bis ords. Last. examples of h1s attitude in bis relationships 1th L tin Auwric are given to make bis attitude to ard Latin A rica b tter understandable by his actions. In this study no attempt 111 be made to eats.bl sh daf1n tely the extent of his attltud an policy toward Latin America. In . aking such an attempt the questions continually rise, such as, how much of the policy e.s credl ted to oot? Can bis pol icy be established from his word , or do bis actions belie bis ,ords? If the policy can be determined to be entirely that of Root 1n ao p rticular instance, then since success of tbe policy 1s judg d by ultimate consequences, one is faced w1 th the insur­ mountable task of date »in1ng bether the consequences of the action trace directly back to the policy of oot.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidents Worksheet 43 Secretaries of State (#1-24)
    PRESIDENTS WORKSHEET 43 NAME SOLUTION KEY SECRETARIES OF STATE (#1-24) Write the number of each president who matches each Secretary of State on the left. Some entries in each column will match more than one in the other column. Each president will be matched at least once. 9,10,13 Daniel Webster 1 George Washington 2 John Adams 14 William Marcy 3 Thomas Jefferson 18 Hamilton Fish 4 James Madison 5 James Monroe 5 John Quincy Adams 6 John Quincy Adams 12,13 John Clayton 7 Andrew Jackson 8 Martin Van Buren 7 Martin Van Buren 9 William Henry Harrison 21 Frederick Frelinghuysen 10 John Tyler 11 James Polk 6 Henry Clay (pictured) 12 Zachary Taylor 15 Lewis Cass 13 Millard Fillmore 14 Franklin Pierce 1 John Jay 15 James Buchanan 19 William Evarts 16 Abraham Lincoln 17 Andrew Johnson 7, 8 John Forsyth 18 Ulysses S. Grant 11 James Buchanan 19 Rutherford B. Hayes 20 James Garfield 3 James Madison 21 Chester Arthur 22/24 Grover Cleveland 20,21,23James Blaine 23 Benjamin Harrison 10 John Calhoun 18 Elihu Washburne 1 Thomas Jefferson 22/24 Thomas Bayard 4 James Monroe 23 John Foster 2 John Marshall 16,17 William Seward PRESIDENTS WORKSHEET 44 NAME SOLUTION KEY SECRETARIES OF STATE (#25-43) Write the number of each president who matches each Secretary of State on the left. Some entries in each column will match more than one in the other column. Each president will be matched at least once. 32 Cordell Hull 25 William McKinley 28 William Jennings Bryan 26 Theodore Roosevelt 40 Alexander Haig 27 William Howard Taft 30 Frank Kellogg 28 Woodrow Wilson 29 Warren Harding 34 John Foster Dulles 30 Calvin Coolidge 42 Madeleine Albright 31 Herbert Hoover 25 John Sherman 32 Franklin D.
    [Show full text]
  • 403 on the Twenty-Ninth Day of May, 1919, Robert Bacon, a Life Mem
    EDITOEIAL COMMENT 403 IN MEMORIAM—ROBERT BACON' On the twenty-ninth day of May, 1919, Robert Bacon, a life mem­ ber of the American Society of International Law, and at one time Assistant, and Secretary of State, Ambassador to France, Major, Lieu­ tenant-Colonel, and Colonel in the American Expeditionary forces in France, died, in the fifty-eighth year of his age, in a hospital in the City of New York. The thing at hand he did, and did well, in college, in business, in civil life and in the military service of his country. As undergraduate of Harvard, in the class of his life-long friend Theodore Roosevelt, he was a good student and easily first in athletics. In business he became the partner and confidant of the late John Pierpont Morgan. Appointed Assistant Secretary of State by Secretary Root, that great statesman and competent judge of men said of him and to him: You have proved yourself far more able and forceful than I dared to hope— possessed of courage to take responsibility and conduct great affairs without flinching or the loss of judgment or nerve—competent to fill any post of govern­ ment with distinction and success. More than that, you have had the imagina­ tion to realize the ultimate objects of policy, and tireless energy and enthusiasm and self-devotion in pressing towards those objects, and your brave-hearted cheer­ fulness and power of friendship and steadfast loyalty have been noble and beautiful. I am sure you have a still more distinguished career before you for all who love you to rejoice in.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of U.S. Military Policy from the Constitution to the Present
    C O R P O R A T I O N The Evolution of U.S. Military Policy from the Constitution to the Present Gian Gentile, Michael E. Linick, Michael Shurkin For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1759 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-0-8330-9786-6 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2017 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface Since the earliest days of the Republic, American political and military leaders have debated and refined the national approach to providing an Army to win the nation’s independence and provide for its defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
    [Show full text]
  • Experiments in Government and the Essentials of the Constitution
    Hein is Pleased to Introduce Another Classic Reprint by a Prominent American Lawyer and Statesman Experiments in Government and the Essentials of the Constitution By Elihu Root Elihu Root was an American lawyer and statesman and the 1912 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. He was the prototype for the 20th century “wise man”, who shuttled between high-level government positions in Washington, D.C. and private-sector legal practice in New York City. Root served as the U.S. Secretary of War under William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt from 1899-1904, and the U.S. Secretary of State under Theodore Roosevelt from 1905-1909. This work is comprised of two lectures, given by Root, during the 1912-1913 Stafford Little Lectures Series at Princeton, which was initially known as the Stafford Little Lectureship on Public Affairs. The fund was founded in 1899 by Henry Stafford Little, who suggested that Grover Cleveland, ex-President of the United States, be invited to deliver before the students of the University ‘such lectures as he might be disposed to give from year to year.’ Mr. Cleveland was the Stafford Little lecturer until his death in 1908. Lecturers have included Theodore Roosevelt on “National Strength and International Duty” (1917-1918); Albert Einstein on “The Meaning of Relativity” (1920-1921); Henry L. Stimson on “Democracy and Nationalism in Europe” (1933-1934); Arnold Shoenberg on “Twelve-tone music composition” and Thurgood Marshall on “The Constitutional Rights of the Negro” (1963-1964). “The people of the United States appear now to have entered upon such a period of re-examination of their system of government.
    [Show full text]
  • Of-Biography - of $ -.*«*; Tubffo
    ! Of-Biography - Of $ -.*«*; Tubffo tive from South Carolina, born in JOHN C. CALHOUN Charleston January 2, 1797; at John CaJdvvell Calhoun was Portraits of Two South Carolinians tended Charleston College and the born at "the Long Canes set i •• ©© school of the Rev. Moses Wad- tlement" In what became Abbe- dell at Abbevule; was graduated ville County, March 18, 1782; V from the College of South Caro was graduated from Yale in lina (USC) in 1814; studied law 1804 and from Litch field law In State Department Collection 1814-1817; further pursued stu School, 1806, admitted to the bar dies in Paris and Edinburg in in 1807 and commenced prac 1818 and 1819; admitted to the By Kathleen Leicit tice In Abbeville; married Flo- bar in 1822 and commenced ride Bonneau Calhoun in 1811; practice in Charleston; member TN THE Department of State the works of those less promi Washington on February 28,1844. gave up the practice of law and of the State House of Repre 1 in Washington, there is a nent. Some are by unknown or James Gillespie Blaine con established himself as a plant sentatives 1820-22 and 1924-30; little-known collection of por obscure artists. j vened and presided over the er; member of the House of one of the founders and editor traits in oils of the men who All appear to be painted on first Pan American Conference Representative 1808-09; Repre of the Southern Review 1828-32; canvas. in 1889. Robert Bacon, mem sentative from South Carolina have served our country as attorney general for South Caro The title "Secretary ol State" ber of Genend Pershing©s stalf, 1811-17; was Secretary of War in Secretaries of State.
    [Show full text]
  • Elihu Root an the Conservative Tradition
    REVIEWS ELIHU ROOT An THE CONSERVATIVE TIRAiTioN. By Richard All. Leopold. Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1954, Pp. x, 222. $3.00. In the winter of 1937, as a law clerk employed in a New York office, I Nas sent to serve papers on the firm of Root, Clark, Buckner and Ballantine. I noticed on arrival that an immense, almost palpable hush had fallen upon their sumptuous offices, and I was informed that its members had just received word of the death of the senior Elihu Root. Plainly this was a figure of no small eminence that had passed, and one who had left upon all his associates a deep and abiding impression. Recently, never having read the standard two-volume life of Root by Philip Jessup, and having acquired no more than the journey- man historian's information about the bare externals of Root's career, I turned with great interest to Professor Richard Leopold's brief biography in the ex- pectation of learning a good deal more about the life and personal character of this Titan of American conservatism whose passing, long after his active years were over, had still cut such a broad swath of silence among those who had known him. Certainly, from the standpoint of Root's reputation, this seemed an auspicious moment for the revaluation of his career. For Root was, politically, most notable as a solid conservative, and American conservatism is today undergoing a re- valuation far more sympathetic than it could have received at any time during the past thirty years or more.
    [Show full text]
  • The Currency of Power Robert Zoellick
    Mr. Mbunk is a doctoral student in political theory at Harvard University and the founding editor of the Utopian. Article 7. Foreign Policy The Currency of Power Robert Zoellick November 2012 -- Earlier this year, Bob Carr, Australia's foreign minister and a longtime friend of the United States, observed with Aussie clarity: "The United States is one budget deal away from restoring its global preeminence." He added a caution: "There are powers in the Asia-Pacific that are whispering that this time the United States will not get its act together, so others had best attend to them." Carr's insight -- that the connection between economics and security will determine America's future -- is sound and persuasive. Yet ever since the rise of "national security" as a concept at the start of the Cold War, economics has become the unappreciated subordinate of U.S. foreign policy. Today, the power of deficits, debt, and economic trend lines to shape security is staring the United States in the face. Others see it, even if America does not. Carr, a student of U.S. history, would probably not be surprised to learn that his warning echoes words drafted by Alexander Hamilton, America's first Treasury secretary, for President George Washington's farewell address: The new nation, Hamilton urged, must "cherish credit as a means of strength and security." Ironically, it took an admiral -- Mike Mullen, then chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff -- to recall Hamilton's warning about the link between credit and security. Mullen seized attention not by pointing out a danger to the fleet, but by telling CNN, "The most significant threat to our national security is our debt." Mullen's observation should not come as a surprise, because strategists in uniform often look to history as their laboratory.
    [Show full text]
  • Dos 230Th Anniversary Thos Jefferson First Secretary Of
    Thomas Jefferson (1790–1793) ✪ Edmund Jennings Randolph (1794–1795) ✪ Timothy Pickering (1795–1800) ✪ John Marshall (1800– 1801) ✪ James Madison (1801–1809) ✪ Robert Smith (1809–1811) ✪ James Monroe (1811–1817) ✪ John Quincy Adams (1817–1825) ✪ Henry Clay (1825–1829) ✪ Martin Van Buren (1829–1831) ✪ Edward Livingston (1831–1833) ✪ Louis McLane (1833–1834) ✪ John Forsyth (1834– 1841) DanielUnited Webster (1841–1843) Abel ✪ ✪ Parker Upshur (1843–1844) ✪ John Caldwell Calhoun (1844–1845)States ✪ James Buchanan (1845– 1849) ✪ John Middleton Clayton (1849–1850) ✪ Daniel Webster (1850–1852) ✪ Edward Everett (1852–1853)Department ✪ William Learned Marcy (1853– 1857) ✪ Lewis Cass (1857–1860) ✪ Jeremiah Sullivan Black (1860–1861) ✪ William Henry Seward (1861–1869)of ✪ Elihu Benjamin Washburne (1869–1869) ✪ Hamilton Fish (1869–1877) ✪ William Maxwell Evarts (1877–1881) ✪ James Gillespie BlaineState (1881–1881) Frederick ✪ Theodore Frelinghuysen (1881–1885) ✪ Thomas Francis Bayard (1885–1889) ✪ James Gillespie Blaine (1889–1892)1789 ✪ John Watson2019 Foster (1892– 1893) ✪ Walter Quintin• Gresham (1893–1895) ✪ Richard Olney (1895–1897) ✪ John Sherman (1897–1898) William Rufus Day (1898–1898) T✪ H E V O I C E ✪ John Milton Hay (1898–1905) ✪ Elihu Root (1905–1909) Robert Bacon (1909–1909) OF ✪AMERICA TO ✪ Philander Chase Knox (1909–1913) ✪ William Jennings Bryan (1913–1915) Robert Lansing THE WORLD ✪ (1915–1920) ✪ Bainbridge Colby (1920–1921) ✪ Charles Evans Hughes (1921–1925) Frank FOR 230 YEARS ✪ Billings Kellogg (1925–1929) ✪ Henry Lewis Stimson (1929–1933) Cordell Hull (1933–1944) AND BEYOND ✪ ✪ Edward Reilly Stettinius (1944–1945) ✪ James Francis Byrnes (1945–1947) ✪ George Catlett Marshall (1947–1949) ✪ Dean Gooderham Acheson (1949–1953) ✪ John Foster Dulles (1953– 1959) ✪ Christian Archibald Herter (1959–1961) ✪ David Dean Rusk (1961–1969) ✪ William Pierce Rogers (1969–1973) ✪ Henry A.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction the Foundations of Diplomatic Security
    INTRODUCTION THE FOUNDATIONS OF DIPLOMATIC SECURITY INTRODUCTION 8 THE FOUNDATIONS OF DIPLOMATIC SECURITY Diplomatic security is as old as diplomacy itself. Initially, diplomatic security was primarily the secure conveyance of government communications using couriers and codes. The Persian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Chinese, Greek, Roman, Aztec, and Incan empires developed courier services to carry imperial messages. The Greeks and Romans also developed ciphers to preserve confidentiality of diplomatic messages.1 By the Renaissance (1500s), codes had emerged, and Spanish, French, English, Vatican, and Venetian foreign ministers routinely used ciphers and codes when writing to their diplomats abroad. The European monarchies also developed courier networks to carry messages. Courier work was seen as a training ground for diplomats because couriers had to exercise discretion, know the local language, and employ disguises to avoid detection.2 Colonial-era leaders in North America were acutely aware of the need to protect their correspondence. As tensions escalated between Great Britain and its American colonies in the 1760s, the Sons of Liberty communicated with each other by Figure 1: Henry Laurens, U.S. Commissioner to the dropping letters at secretly designated coffee houses or Netherlands. Laurens and his papers were captured by the British while en route to Europe. His papers provided taverns, where sympathetic postmen or ship captains evidence of Dutch aid to the American Revolution and led would pick up and deliver the letters. During the Great Britain to declare war on the Netherlands. Portrait by Pierre Eugène du Simitière, 1783. Source: Library of American Revolution, the small fleet of sympathetic Congress, Prints and Photographs Division.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategists Break All the Rules
    No. 93 JANUARY 2013 Strategists Break All the Rules Adelaido Godinez Strategists Break All the Rules by Adelaido Godinez The Institute of Land Warfare ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY AN INSTITUTE OF LAND WARFARE PAPER The purpose of the Institute of Land Warfare is to extend the educational work of AUSA by sponsoring scholarly publications, to include books, monographs and essays on key defense issues, as well as workshops and symposia. A work selected for publication as a Land Warfare Paper represents research by the author which, in the opinion of ILW’s editorial board, will contribute to a better understanding of a particular defense or national security issue. Publication as an Institute of Land Warfare Paper does not indicate that the Association of the United States Army agrees with everything in the paper but does suggest that the Association believes the paper will stimulate the thinking of AUSA members and others concerned about important defense issues. LAND WARFARE PAPER NO. 93, January 2013 Strategists Break All the Rules by Adelaido Godinez Major Adelaido Godinez III enlisted in the Army in 1990. In 1992, he was selected for the United States Military Academy. He graduated in May 1996 and was commissioned as an infantry officer. After completing all requisite courses at Fort Benning, Georgia, he was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, where he served as a platoon leader in 2d Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment (Garry Owen). In February 1999, he was selected to be the aide de camp for the Assistant Division Commander (Maneuver), 1st Cavalry Division. He later served as a company commander in 1st Battalion, 14th Infantry (Golden Dragons) during Operation Iraqi Freedom 2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rio Treaty to the United Nations. Article X of the Rio Treaty
    866 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW the Rio Treaty to the United Nations. Article X of the Rio Treaty specifically provides that None of the provisions of this treaty shall be construed as impairing the rights and obligations of the high contracting parties under the the Charter of the United Nations. The conclusion of the Rio Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance is an occasion for certain inescapable reflections and comparisons. It is above all, as stated by Senator Vandenberg, in accordance with traditional American ideals. It recalls the names of James Monroe, Simon Bolivar, James G. Blaine, Elihu Root and Cordell Hull. To them it adds the names of Harry S. Truman and George C. Marshall. When the latter affixed the signature of the United States to this treaty at Rio de Janeiro on August 30, 1947, the spirit of Elihu Root must have been hovering nearby for in the same city forty-one years ago, that is, on July 31, 1906, Mr. Root, then Secretary of State of the United States, at the opening of the Third Pan American Conference, declared on behalf of this country: We wish for no victories but those of peace; for no territory except our own; for no sovereignty except the sovereignty over ourselves. We deem the independence and equal rights of the smallest and weakest member of the family of nations entitled to as much respect as those of the greatest empire; and we deem the observance of that respect the chief guaranty of the weak against the oppression of the strong. Upon his return from Rio de Janeiro, Secretary Marshall reported to the American people over the radio.
    [Show full text]